Ziad Jarrah's Double
Some 9/11 researchers have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the timelines of individual hijackers, and pointing out individual anomalies. They'll point to reports that show the same person in two places at the same time, for instance, and say this indicates the presence of a "double". Here's an example presented by CooperativeResearch.
There certainly are mainstream sources backing up the January 2001 date for Jarrah's visit to Afghanistan. Here's what CNN told us in 2002, for instance:
But there are other versions of the same story. The Joint Inquiry comment on these claims, from September 2002, puts the date of the trip in 2000, not 2001:
Another story adds weight to the idea that Jarrah was in Afghanistan during January 2000:
Stills from the video aren't difficult to find.
Could this have been a different visit? It seems not, at least according to the 9/11 Commission:
Here he's questioned in Dubai on January 30th, yes, but again it's 2000. And in Chapter 7 the Commission Report gives their account of what Jarrah was doing in 2001:
There’s further confirmation in a footnote of Terry McDermott’s “Perfect Soldiers” (our emphasis):
McDermott doesn’t say what the correct date was here, but Chapter 2, where the Jarrah trip is described, begins with “After Ziad Jarrah left Hamburg in late November 1999...”. The January 2000 date seems most likely.
There's also some documentary support in Jarrah's visa, reproduced for the Moussaoui trial, which contains "Admitted" stamps for November 24th in the Bahamas, and Jan 05 2001 for the US.
These are not consistent with the "returning from Pakistan and Afghanistan" story, as he's supposed to have been there since November, but they do fit with the Commission and Joint Inquiry timetable.
Does this conclusively prove the official account, though? Of course not. We believe it does show how the timing conflict could have a very simple explanation, though: the original reports got the year wrong, using 2001 instead of 2000. And certainly you should beware of anyone pushing this story, who leaves out the Commission and Joint Inquiry accounts.
A second justification for a Jarrah "double" comes in this story, also from CooperativeResearch:
This story seems to be interpreted in one of two ways.
The first is as you read here, that it's evidence of a Jarrah "double". Although really that just means there was someone called Ziad Jarrah in New York in 1995, who presumably looks like the hijacker Jarrah (although we have no background information on the identification, whether they said "that's 100% him", or "it might be him, it was six years ago"), but who was actually a different person. In which case: so what? Unless you can definitively prove that particular Jarrah is linked to 9/11 in some other way it doesn't mean anything at all.
And the second interpretation we've seen says this was actually the alleged hijacker Jarrah, and therefore the FBI timeline, not placing him in the US until many years later, is utterly wrong.
Obviously we're limited in the investigations we can carry out from the UK, but nonetheless there was something we could try: run a background check on the name.
So off we went to Intelius, and ran a search across all US states for anyone with the name Ziad Jarrah. Immediately we had a hit for a Ziad M Jarrah, with relatives Ihssan M Jarrah (close enough to the "Ihassan" noted above to be interesting) and Ali Ali Jarrah, living in Aurora, CO. Exploring further revealed an address history containing "5 Addresses in SAN ANTONIO, TX; 1 Address in POTSDAM, NY; 1 Address in AURORA, CO". A Ziad Jarrah, with a relative's name almost identical to the one in the story, and a link to New York, and old enough to have been working in New York in 1995? That's a very good fit.
(We see no reason to believe this Ziad Jarrah has any connection whatsoever with 9/11, and so have blurred out his precise address and phone number history. That way he hopefully won't be harrassed by casual visitors to this page, while serious researchers have enough hints here to go look up his records for themselves, if they feel it might be useful.)
What does this mean? Well, the hijacker Jarrah had a different name (no M initial), was a different age, to my knowledge has no relatives Ihssan or Ihassan or Ali Ali, and in the FBI chronology has no connection to San Antonio, Potsdam, or Aurora. It appears this is not the same man, and if correct that means 1995 story does not in itself contradict the FBI timeline for the hijacker Jarrah.
There's also the double theory, of course. If this Jarrah was somehow involved, even unwittingly in the 9/11 plot, then it seems a little odd that he's still living openly and with the same name (other directories also give an Aurora, Colorado address, which suggests to us that's where he currently lives).
But of course this would be easy to resolve: just write, or call, or go talk to the man. If the truth movement is really interested in truth, and not simply collecting "anomalies", then surely that would be a worthwhile thing to do? We look forward to reading out what they've discovered. Because until they do, and can bring up more information about the 1995 Jarrah, it looks to us like the story has nothing to do with 9/11 at all.
We can't finish this page without pointing out that there are many other claims about evidence for "doubles", timeline inconsistencies and so on, for Jarrah and most of the other hijackers. We'll revisit the topic when time allows, but if you want to read more claims in this area then try Cooperative Research's "The Two Ziad Jarrahs" and the Team8 forum "Tracking the alleged hijackers and their doubles".